LolI can only assume that you and your friends have been visiting those places.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US cities see unexplained rise in violent crimes this year
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Once again I am traveling to Toronto today - a city that is much more violent than my home in Cary, North Carolina.
This is in fact entirely false. Toronto has a metro population of 5.6 Million people whereas Cary has only 150,000 people. Of course the news reports give a simpleton like you the idea that it is "much more violent". Actual crime rates per 100K population don't support that claim. Surprisingly, 3 people got murdered in Cary in a year despite it's small size.
Last edited:
This is in fact entirely false. Toronto has a metro population of 5.6 Million people whereas Cary has only 150,000 people. Of course the news reports give a simpleton like you the idea that it is "much more violent". Actual crime rates per 100K population don't support that claim. Surprisingly, 3 people got murdered in Cary in a year despite it's small size.
Let's compare the crime rate in Cary to all of the small cities that surround Toronto. Let's take a look at the statistics of # of crimes per 100,000 in population.
Let's compare the crime rate in Cary to all of the small cities that surround Toronto. Let's take a look at the statistics of # of crimes per 100,000 in population.
Knock yourself out. Canada is a much safer country then the US on every level. The number one aspect is widespread gun ownership in the US. You live in a more violent society, you can shelter yourself somewhat by living in gated communities or in select towns and cities, but in Canada it isn't necessary.
It does not matter. I am not interested in personal flaming and never attacked or disrespected your country. My opinion on better ways to license firearms and requiring a proper examination applies universally not just the US.
conduit:
"I am claiming that the average citizen is incredibly dumb. Having put a weapon into the hands of the stupid is a big reason they go about killing each other, more so than in any other part of the world. "
So in your world calling people "incredibly dumb" and "stupid" is a compliment?
Knock yourself out. Canada is a much safer country then the US on every level. The number one aspect is widespread gun ownership in the US. You live in a more violent society, you can shelter yourself somewhat by living in gated communities or in select towns and cities, but in Canada it isn't necessary.
Sigh...you just refuse to learn. The reason we have so many murders is inner city blacks and Mexican drug gangs kill each other a lot. Adjust for that and the statistical disparity vanishes, just like it does with educational achievement and a whole other raft of measure of social dysfunction.
So "adjust for it", life is fine where you live, quit your bitching.Sigh...you just refuse to learn. The reason we have so many murders is inner city blacks and Mexican drug gangs kill each other a lot. Adjust for that and the statistical disparity vanishes, just like it does with educational achievement and a whole other raft of measure of social dysfunction.
The error rate in false convictions with a juror system is also much higher than the non juror system in most other Western industrialized nations. After all you sit a bunch of complete Hillbillies in a room without any legal training whatsoever, and let them decide over a man's life. No surprise it is associated with lots of errors. That re your first point.
Secondly, you are completely perverting the Bill of Rights. The whole point was to grant maximum personal freedom, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OTHERS' FREEDOM. But you do exactly that when you allow some crazies to drive around in cars without proper training and testing of basic driving skills. Same with firearms, it infringes on the freedom of all those who were killed and those who are loved ones of those who were killed by firearms that would have not been accessible had the firearms been properly handled and stored.
Finally, you are completely misunderstanding your own cited article. The whole point was to show that the existence of guns not properly registered caused a huge problem in the UK. Please show how gun violence is a big problem in London today compared with the for US standards very safe city New York. You nitpick and misunderstand and as a result you completely omit facts. Please compare injuries/deaths where firearms are involved between London and New York today and we can talk.
Secondly, you are completely perverting the Bill of Rights. The whole point was to grant maximum personal freedom, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OTHERS' FREEDOM. But you do exactly that when you allow some crazies to drive around in cars without proper training and testing of basic driving skills. Same with firearms, it infringes on the freedom of all those who were killed and those who are loved ones of those who were killed by firearms that would have not been accessible had the firearms been properly handled and stored.
Finally, you are completely misunderstanding your own cited article. The whole point was to show that the existence of guns not properly registered caused a huge problem in the UK. Please show how gun violence is a big problem in London today compared with the for US standards very safe city New York. You nitpick and misunderstand and as a result you completely omit facts. Please compare injuries/deaths where firearms are involved between London and New York today and we can talk.
You may be really smart... but your post (see below) does not seem to be the product of an informed intellect on this subject for at lest 2 reasons...
1. sometimes constitution rights are more important than individual outcomes. That is why we we have a beyond reasonable doubt standard and tough jury thresholds before we convict people in criminal court. Some guilty people go free to keep innocent people out of jail...
We are granted the right to bear arms even though guns can hurt people.
2. As far as jurisdictions and gun control you statement seems wildly inaccurate to my more informed understanding... for instance...
harvard found...
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/harvard-study-stringent-gun-controls-lead-to-higher-murder-rates/
Comparing the U.S. with England, which banned most guns by the late 1990s, researchers found “a negative correlation” showing “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.”
That’s the same conclusion researchers with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reached in a 2004 study, as did a U.S. Centers for Disease Control study the year before, Kates and Mauser wrote.
“Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms,” they wrote. “Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.”
At the same time, “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” according to the Harvard study.
The narrative about guns contributing to violence in the U.S. is perpetuated by the media in coordination with gun control advocates, according to Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs told Belief Net.
“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it’s not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don’t hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?”
“Why? A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms,” he told the news site.
Last edited:
I agree, and mandatory firearm training should be mandatory for all students who go to public schools which are mandatory for anyone who can't afford private school. Otherwise, you commies sure do like to make things mandatory. What happens to a person like you if everything is not mandatory? Do you all just go out and blow everything up? We'll probably never know. I doubt you could handle free choice. We should make free choice mandatory.Left right left right yawn. I am neither. I genuinely care about thinking about problems and trying to solve them. I never asked for the removal of constitutional rights. I promote the responsible handling of firearms and a great way to do that would be requiring mandatory training and education similar to a driver's license.
And since when is a superior mind something to be ashamed of?
You still don't get it. It's not about you, nut. It's about protecting all those around you from your road rages and the next time you get drunk and happen to have a gun on you. Geez, some are incredibly thick
I agree, and mandatory firearm training should be mandatory for all students who go to public schools which are mandatory for anyone who can't afford private school. Otherwise, you commies sure do like to make things mandatory. What happens to a person like you if everything is not mandatory? Do you all just go out and blow everything up? We'll probably never know. I doubt you could handle free choice. We should make free choice mandatory.